Has anyone offered turnouts which work with NWSL’s proto 64 wheelsets? If you wanted to build them, are any aids (gauges, etc.) available?
Has anyone been able to integrate cars with 64-size wheels and locos with RP25 wheels on the same trackage?
Hal
I think you might be confused. “scale” wheels in HO are Proto 87. 64 should be S scale I think
Actually I think he is partially right. I think that the P87 wheels have a tread width of .064". Semi Scale or P:HO wheels are .088" and I think the NMRA standards are .110".
I was doing some investigations on changing an Athearn loco to P87 since you can set the flange to flange width because of the split axles. If you talk to the P87 guys it doesn’t work as they have much tighter tolerances. That said, If I didn’t have to special order them from my local hobby shop I might be inclined to pick up a package for trials under my loco. But they wouldn’t really be noticed as well as on say a tank car or covered hopper and the axles for the cars are much less forgiving of track guage. I think on well laid and quality track that there may only be a few problems. There is a website that offers switch kits for P:HO and P:87.
http://www.proto87stores.com
Ric is pretty much on the money. The narrower wheel treads will drop in the flangeways on NMRA spec frogs. I doubt the guard rail positions would be correct either. If you are using Code 64 wheels - the code refers to the tread width and Code 64 is correct for exact scale in HO - you will need turnouts built to Proto87 specs.
Experience with Code 88 wheels (typically used in HOn3 and “fine scale”) has shown even they “rattle” going through an NMRA spec turnout. They work quite well, though, with track built to fine scale specs. Bottom line is that the wheel and track specs should be a matched set for good performance.
The real tragedy is the NMRA HO spec (Code 110 wheels under RP25) has a built-in mismatch between wheel and track gauge of close to 3 scale inches - the track gauge is wider than the wheel gauge. That is why many hand-laid track experts recommend not widening the track gauge on curves with 3 point gauges (it’s already plenty wide) and laying turnouts right at minimum gauge.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I’ve tried a set of the proto 64 wheel sets on a box car running on my code 83 track. It ran fine, except over switch frogs causing rocking of the car. I changed them out and have gone back to the standard metal wheels sets.
As Fred started .110" is NMRA recommended practice (RP25) for tire width.Simi Scale is .88" tire width while scale width is .64".However as noted one needs track and switches built to Proto87 specs(RP3).
http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-3.html -Under review for deletion due to conflicts with Standards.
Sorry, I did misname them; I meant P87 code 64.
I got four axles worth to experiment with on a boxcar. They passed some of my Peco 75 turnouts, and crashed on some. I wasn’t surprised. Earlier I tried semiscale wheels with no problems.
Not planning to build trackage to new specs in the immediate future, but interested in knowing what would be needed; thanks for your replies.
Hal
SIMPLY PUT
‘Scale’ wheels are narrower in width with smaller flanges than what our models have. They require perfect track orherwise wheels will fall in between the rails.
NMRA specs are a compromise - and are actually recommendations for uniformity standards that primaily WORK. Before NMRA we had wheels with oversized ‘pizza’ cutter’ flanges to help cars stay on the track. and every car manufacturer used different couplers.
We want more realistic ‘scale’ couplers - but not if they let go. We want perfect turnouts, flangeways, and frogs, but not if it costs 2X. Products with tighter tolerances reduce the yield. It’s a matter of money.
The world of ‘scale wheels’ belongs to those who those that hand-lay track. Can ‘Railway Engineering’ or ‘Shinohara’ make a ‘perfect’ turnout? Sure - but not @ the same cost of an Atlas.